Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Coutts Have (Not) Been Telling Fibs (Part Ii)
In the original thread on this topic, I pointed out that a financial expert had stated (in a youtube video) that Coutts had terminated Farage’s account because he no longer met the financial criteria to hold an account with them, once his mortgage came to an end.
Many pooh poohed my posts, pointing out that I was wrong (as was the financial expert) – and asking me to apologise.
Well, I have now read that 40 page report from Coutts, and indeed it does say that Farage’s account would be closed because he no longer met the financial criteria to hold an account (once the mortgage expired). It also mentions that the bank should continue to monitor Farage with regards a reputational risk to the bank, which should be escalated to the Bank’s Committee – and I assume that they could have closed the account on this basis if some incident has arisen, but they did not.
The actual relevant words from the report are copied and pasted below:-
‘With the support of the Committee, [the Chair] concluded as follows: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client, and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.
However, whilst the mortgage is in place we should continue to monitor NF, and if there is a ‘flash point’ involving NF which would increase the reputational risk to the bank, it should be escalated to this Committee promptly.’
Many pooh poohed my posts, pointing out that I was wrong (as was the financial expert) – and asking me to apologise.
Well, I have now read that 40 page report from Coutts, and indeed it does say that Farage’s account would be closed because he no longer met the financial criteria to hold an account (once the mortgage expired). It also mentions that the bank should continue to monitor Farage with regards a reputational risk to the bank, which should be escalated to the Bank’s Committee – and I assume that they could have closed the account on this basis if some incident has arisen, but they did not.
The actual relevant words from the report are copied and pasted below:-
‘With the support of the Committee, [the Chair] concluded as follows: After the expiry of the mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client, and we should set a glide path to exiting NF when that mortgage expires.
However, whilst the mortgage is in place we should continue to monitor NF, and if there is a ‘flash point’ involving NF which would increase the reputational risk to the bank, it should be escalated to this Committee promptly.’
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The fact that the remainder of the 40 page Coutts report noted that Farage was a dodgy geezer, had nothing to do with them debanking him.//
You still seem to be missing the point. They did not have a report on him noting that he was a “dodgy geezer”. They had one which suggested he held certain views – including on immigration and climate change - which the bank found unpalatable. They had no reason to have such a report.
As I also noted earlier, the bank said this:
“In making the decision [to exit NF] risk factor including….controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose and the possibility, speculated upon in the press and not denied, of re- entry to politics were taken into account.”
What exactly are they suggesting is the “bank’s purpose”? Essentially it is to look after people’s money, taking it in and lending it out. So how did Mr Farage’s views conflict with that purpose? Why were these matters taken into account? Why should they even have been considered?
The only reason some of Mr Farage’s public statements are deemed controversial is that not everyone – presumably including senior managers at Coutts - agrees with him. So they provoke controversy which is essential in a functioning democracy. Are you comfortable with a banking organisation (40% owned by the taxpayer) deciding who to retain as customers based on their controversial views? And please don’t say that they didn’t because, as has been adequately explained to you a number of times, and near enough accepted by the bank itself, they did.
You still seem to be missing the point. They did not have a report on him noting that he was a “dodgy geezer”. They had one which suggested he held certain views – including on immigration and climate change - which the bank found unpalatable. They had no reason to have such a report.
As I also noted earlier, the bank said this:
“In making the decision [to exit NF] risk factor including….controversial public statements which were felt to conflict with the bank’s purpose and the possibility, speculated upon in the press and not denied, of re- entry to politics were taken into account.”
What exactly are they suggesting is the “bank’s purpose”? Essentially it is to look after people’s money, taking it in and lending it out. So how did Mr Farage’s views conflict with that purpose? Why were these matters taken into account? Why should they even have been considered?
The only reason some of Mr Farage’s public statements are deemed controversial is that not everyone – presumably including senior managers at Coutts - agrees with him. So they provoke controversy which is essential in a functioning democracy. Are you comfortable with a banking organisation (40% owned by the taxpayer) deciding who to retain as customers based on their controversial views? And please don’t say that they didn’t because, as has been adequately explained to you a number of times, and near enough accepted by the bank itself, they did.
> They had no reason to have such a report
Yes they did. Put it this way ... I don't have a Coutts account. If I wanted to have one, they would check whether I had the criteria and, having not meeting those criteria, they wouldn't allow me to open an account ... irrespective of my views and values.
Farage had an account, because he once met the criteria. Recently he failed to continue meeting the criteria. So they were in their rights to figure out whether they would continue to keep an account for him. And they chose not. Their choice. It's the equivalent of wearing trainers into the golf club - some are happy, others not.
Coutts didn't publish anything nasty about Farage. They made a value judgment, and made an internal report based on their judgment. Farage then pulled a SAR (subject access request), and then published it. Any damage reputation of Farage is therefore of his own making. Loads of people are refused a bank account, as is the bank's right, and it has no reflection of their personality.
Yes they did. Put it this way ... I don't have a Coutts account. If I wanted to have one, they would check whether I had the criteria and, having not meeting those criteria, they wouldn't allow me to open an account ... irrespective of my views and values.
Farage had an account, because he once met the criteria. Recently he failed to continue meeting the criteria. So they were in their rights to figure out whether they would continue to keep an account for him. And they chose not. Their choice. It's the equivalent of wearing trainers into the golf club - some are happy, others not.
Coutts didn't publish anything nasty about Farage. They made a value judgment, and made an internal report based on their judgment. Farage then pulled a SAR (subject access request), and then published it. Any damage reputation of Farage is therefore of his own making. Loads of people are refused a bank account, as is the bank's right, and it has no reflection of their personality.
As the liars at Coutts were managing the "glide path" that allowed them to claim their reasons were commercial, did they advice Farage that the fulfilment of his mortgage gave them right(but not reason) to close his account? If not why not? Why are other account holders still able to bank there after stating that they also fail the "commercial viability threshold"? Should we, as 40% shareholders in the parent company demand to know how many "account holders" at Coutts offend our sensibilities? I want to know how many arms dealers and oil barons, and their names, bank there. I want to know how many other threats to society as we know it Jim, have been debanked, in say the last 10 years, for their heinous views. This chilling and sinister action by an institute that for 300 odd years was a bank that valued probity and confidentiality is nothing less than scandalous. If you cannot discern that then you are deficient in comprehension. Or wilfully so.
Atheist, nobody seems bothered about the myriad of other unfortunate or unedifying people who have had a bank account refused over the years ... like these:
https:/
https:/
//So they were in their rights to figure out whether they would continue to keep an account for him.//
Indeed they were. But in figuring it out, they should not consider his views on (say) immigration and climate change. Such matters have no bearing on his suitability as a customer.
//It's the equivalent of wearing trainers into the golf club - some are happy, others not.//
Not it’s not. Banks are not private members’ clubs. They operate under licence from the government and provide what is near enough an essential service. The report (on which they based their judgement – not the other way round as you suggest) included details of Mr Farage’s views on topical issues and his association with people (e.g. Donald Trump and Novak Djokovic) of whom the bank presumably does not approve. They have no need to gather this information about their customers and certainly no right to hold it.
//Farage then pulled a SAR (subject access request), and then published it.//
And we should all be very grateful that he did. The idea that banks are keeping tabs on their customers to the extent that they are keeping records of their political views and those with whom they associate should be deeply troubling to us all. I cannot understand how anybody can defend such actions. It really is of no consequence whether or not those records swayed the decision of Coutts to discontinue Mr. Farage’s account. The important thing is that he has discovered an extremely sinister practice which should be prevented by law if necessary.
I notice that Mr Farage has approached the Information Commissioner’s Office with a view to making a complaint under data protection legislation. Information held on individuals must be necessary and relevant. I wonder how Coutts will suggest that it was necessary to record that one of their customers had associated with a former President of the USA and with one of the world’s leading tennis players and what relevance that information had to their business relationship.
Indeed they were. But in figuring it out, they should not consider his views on (say) immigration and climate change. Such matters have no bearing on his suitability as a customer.
//It's the equivalent of wearing trainers into the golf club - some are happy, others not.//
Not it’s not. Banks are not private members’ clubs. They operate under licence from the government and provide what is near enough an essential service. The report (on which they based their judgement – not the other way round as you suggest) included details of Mr Farage’s views on topical issues and his association with people (e.g. Donald Trump and Novak Djokovic) of whom the bank presumably does not approve. They have no need to gather this information about their customers and certainly no right to hold it.
//Farage then pulled a SAR (subject access request), and then published it.//
And we should all be very grateful that he did. The idea that banks are keeping tabs on their customers to the extent that they are keeping records of their political views and those with whom they associate should be deeply troubling to us all. I cannot understand how anybody can defend such actions. It really is of no consequence whether or not those records swayed the decision of Coutts to discontinue Mr. Farage’s account. The important thing is that he has discovered an extremely sinister practice which should be prevented by law if necessary.
I notice that Mr Farage has approached the Information Commissioner’s Office with a view to making a complaint under data protection legislation. Information held on individuals must be necessary and relevant. I wonder how Coutts will suggest that it was necessary to record that one of their customers had associated with a former President of the USA and with one of the world’s leading tennis players and what relevance that information had to their business relationship.
//In hindsight, they should not have even bothered getting into its values. He didn't meet the financial criteria, goodbye.//
So why didn't they?
But that aside, do you think it's acceptable for a bank to keep information on their customers' political views and with whom they associate for whatever reason (unless, of course, they suspect criminal activity, of which there has never been any intimation)?
So why didn't they?
But that aside, do you think it's acceptable for a bank to keep information on their customers' political views and with whom they associate for whatever reason (unless, of course, they suspect criminal activity, of which there has never been any intimation)?
It would appear from this thread that the youtube financial expert and I were the only persons who correctly answered my English test question I set out at 14:35 (Answer D:- that after the expiry of a mortgage with Coutts, NF would not be a criteria client).
Not even Coutts or their parent company NatWest seem to understand the importance of the penultimate sentence in my extract from their report, and certainly very few ABers.
Not even Coutts or their parent company NatWest seem to understand the importance of the penultimate sentence in my extract from their report, and certainly very few ABers.
//Not even Coutts or their parent company NatWest seem to understand the importance of the penultimate sentence in my extract from their report, and certainly very few ABers.//
Yeah. Puzzling innit? Anyone would think Coutts are deliberately courting bad publicity and jeopardising their reputation - the very things they suggest maintaining a relationship with Mr Farage would expose them to. Funny that only you and the cove on YouTube could see through it.
Yeah. Puzzling innit? Anyone would think Coutts are deliberately courting bad publicity and jeopardising their reputation - the very things they suggest maintaining a relationship with Mr Farage would expose them to. Funny that only you and the cove on YouTube could see through it.
Latest Posts
Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
And They Wonder Why Insurance Is So...
News17 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.